Results 101 - 120 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Why Jesus live Lazarus die after raised | John | Brent Douglass | 37302 | ||
I read the other answer that you received, and I think it was very helpful. However, there is a clarification that I want to add. In the resurrection, we will have our own (same) physical bodies, but they will be spiritual rather than fleshly, as Christ's body was spiritual (and could walk through walls, appear and disappear from sight, yet consume food) at the time of His resurrection. I believe that no one's body was physically resurrected prior to Christ, including that of Lazarus (although Elijah and Enoch are puzzling); Jesus our Lord was the first. However, when Christ was raised, other dead saints (holy ones) were raised with Him. (Matt 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.") Those of us who have died since Christ's resurrection will not be raised again bodily (only the soul) until the time of Christ's return, when our impure and perishable fleshly bodies (whether they have rotted in the earth or been burned to nothingness or not), will be raised and transformed into pure and imperishable spiritual bodies. Those who are still alive at His return will not die, but they will still need to be changed physically. (1 Cor 15:51-54 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. "But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, 'DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.'") This is the very point that Jesus was making to Lazarus' sister Martha before raising him from the dead. (John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?") |
||||||
102 | Please explain the Trinity. | John 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 1732 | ||
Brothersalas, Was your question dealt with beyond the one reply attached to it? The reply I saw seemed to be along unorthodox lines with no further reply. Maybe it was handled elsewhere, but I don't want to let it pass without comment, for this is a central issue. There is only one God, but He exists in 3 persons who are in relationship with one another. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have relationship; they are not merely separate manifestations of one person. In Genesis 1:26-27, God talks to himself relationally in the plural, and yet One God creates. John 1 goes in depth about the concurrent permanent nature of the Word as God (Jesus) and God (the Father). Throughout his earthly ministry, the Son prays interactively with the Father and is confirmed through the physical descent of the Spirit ( ex. Jn 1:33) in every Gospel account of Jesus's baptism. God is One in essence, yet there is relationship WITHIN the Godhead. Members of the 3 persons consistently appear concurrently and interactively. Regardless of the terminology used, this is the essence of the Trinity concept; I suggest a study of the Gospels specifically asking the question throughout, "How does the Son interact with the Father and the Spirit?" This will bring out the concept of the Trinity. Although this inner relationship in the One God works is not fully understandable, it is clearly portrayed over and over in the Gospels. God was NOT first the Father, THEN the Son on earth, THEN the Spirit in believers after his resurrection. This is heretical. Every Gospel shows concurrent appearance, interaction and relationship among the Members of the One Godhead. |
||||||
103 | Please explain the Trinity. | John 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 1781 | ||
Any illustration is obviously going to have its limitations, and the concept of the Trinity is beyond our ability to completely understand, and I think your illustration is a good attempt at getting at the idea of God appearing in different ways. However, that said, I think it misses the focal point of distinction between the members (or "persons" as is sometimes used) of the Trinity. It can give the indication that there are simply "Manifestations" of a single entity. This still loses the idea of relationship and interaction between Members of the One Godhead. The Son actually sits at "the right hand of... the Father," "received" the Holy Spirit from the Father according to promise, and "poured forth" the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit is visible among God's people (Acts 2:33). These are not merely manifestations of a Single Member; there is interaction, absolute and complete agreement, and division of roles among the Members of the One Triune God. I believe this is one sense in which man (mankind -- including both male and female) is "created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). We have mutiple components that exist concurrently but function as a whole. Specifically, we have at least body, soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12; 1 Cor 15:49-53). (As a sidenote of limited value, some may add the mind and-or the heart, but a hidden separation of soul and spirit is clear from Hebrews 4:12 and the need for the body to be changed is clear from 1 Cor 15:49-53; the mind and heart may be additional parts of this joint oneness or simply a "place" or "way" for them to join.) The Spirit can commune with God (Galatians 4:6). When God breathed into man (gave us our spirit, considering breath or wind to mean spirit), man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). We know that our fleshly bodies die; yet this is not permanent. As with the dead saints whose decomposed bodies were changed and restored at the time of Christ's resurrection (Mt 27:52), so will my (and-or your) body be changed at the time of Christ's return (1 Cor 15:49-53), and my new spiritual body will, once again, unite with my soul and spirit in my ongoing worship before the throne of God in my-our completed form. (Obviously this illustration is limited as well. For one, when I am finally complete before God, the Son will be seated at the right hand of the Father, and I will have only one physical prescence -- never being God. Nevertheless, I think it more accurately sets a tone for the interaction of separate members of one whole. |
||||||
104 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 37296 | ||
John 3:13 reads as follows in the NASB: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." The same verse in the Amplified reads as follows: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven, but there is One Who has come down from heaven--the Son of Man [Himself], Who is (dwells, has His home) in heaven." The context makes it clear that these translations have the most obvious natural reading of the puzzling part of this passage. Heaven is the home of Jesus -- the Son of Man. No man had yet ascended bodily to the third heaven, but Jesus had descended from there, and thus had the only eyewitness account available from any human being. Only Jesus, the Son of Man, whose eternal home had been and would always be heaven, could speak of heaven as one who truly knows it. |
||||||
105 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 144642 | ||
Thanks for the input, Ray, but I wouldn't capitalize "one" in this case. Since I used "one" to replace the phrase "human being," it shouldn't be capitalized. Jesus is the only human being who was an eyewitness of heaven. (It's a fairly small point, but I think that is carrying capitalization a little too far.) Jesus' divinity -- as God the Son -- is eternal. While His humanity is not eternal, having begun at the incarnation, it is nevertheless everlasting from that time forward. I think I follow what you're saying in that "God is not a son of man," and that Jesus "was not a human being in heaven." No, "God the Son" was not a human being before He first came to the earth. However, He is certainly a "son of man" now. "Son of Man" was Jesus' favorite Old Testament Messianic term for Himself. Christ will be a human being forever -- in a resurrected body as the "first-born" human being from the dead. God the Son is now, and always will be going forward, a human being in heaven. He will always be fully God and fully man. In Christ's love, Brent |
||||||
106 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 37403 | ||
This is a very hard question that can generate some strong reactions and accusations within the believing community. There are those who would question the credentials (or even the salvation) of even such solid and faithful teachers as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis based on their answers to this question. The statement, as it stands, without additional assumptions about underlying beliefs, is not hereticaly in and of itself. There is room for question as to whether it is belief in God or belief in Christ alone that saves. Active disbelief in Christ is active disbelief in God (Jn 3:18). However, we are judged based on that which we have seen and heard (see Romans 1:20), NOT that which we have not yet been exposed to. There is no disagreement among solid evangelical preachers or scholars that only because of the blood of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. However, this applies to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. They did not believe in Jesus Christ in the sense that we do today, because Christ's work and person were something that even the prophets and angels could not grasp until they observed them(1 Pe 1:10-12). The same is true of anyone who has not heard today. Anyone who is willing to follow God will believe in Christ if-when they have the opportunity (Jn 7:16-17). Thus the gospel was, at the time of Paul, for the (believing) Jew first (Ro 1:16); I would apply this, in a lesser sense, to any God fearer. However, the gospel, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can also take one who has never believed before -- even in that which s-he has seen or heard -- and transform that one into a believer as well. Thus the Gospel is the power of salvation for the heathen as well (Ro 1:16). This is greatly simplified, but the basic idea is that the God-fearer MAY have life but lacks the sure hope available through the deeper revelation of the gospel of Christ. The heathen, in contrast, had no faith and no salvation at all, until he comes to the truth and the Spirit's conviction upon him. If he (or she) then believes, he is saved even if there were no previous knowledge, faith, or interest in God. |
||||||
107 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 63664 | ||
Sorry to bring this back after so long (rather than earlier), Lionstrong. I don't review the list much anymore (due to time limitations, not offense or anything like that), but I wanted to reply to your posting. I came across it after someone replied to my earlier reply on the same thread. I really like the points that you make, so I don't need to reply to the original thread, but there is one consideration that I'd like to suggest. I've quoted an excerpt from you below and responded afterward. 'But the verse under consideration in this thread (John 3:18) seems to say that since the coming and work of the Only Begotten, we are commanded to specifically believe the promises in this Chosen One, for it says that if we believe not (in Him), we have been judged already. The last verse of this chapter in John's Gospel makes the point even stronger: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.' - Lionstrong The last verse of the chapter, in the NAS, reads: John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Reading the different versions together, I think the clearest reading of both of these verses from John 3 are that they reference active disbelief on the part of those who have come into contact with Christ -- whether through encountering Jesus directly during His presence on the earth or through the written or spoken proclamation about Him -- not disbelief stemming from helpless ignorance. As the Amplified adds, "[He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ's name.]" In context, it seems fairly clear that John is referring to those who have had the opportunity to encounter Christ and have either believed (resulting in life) or disbelieved through avoidance or rejection (resulting in condemnation). The reason for judgment is refusal of the revelation of God: "because he has not believed [has disbelieved] in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [Added note here is mine.] |
||||||
108 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 63716 | ||
Thanks for your quick reply, Lionstrong. We definitely have a difference of opinion on some underlying ideas, no doubt based upon differences in priority given to speicific passages and interpretations underlying those views. However, I don't think they're necessarily relevant to this passage, since I don't think it either defends or discourages either view. Please recognize that I offer the following as only my opinions, which continue to be tested over time. Disagreement is fine, no matter how firm I may seem to be in my statements. I appreciate your response and your concern about the tendency for people to gravitate toward such a reading (active disbelief) of this text simply from a desire to defend God (or their-our own views of God) from accusations of being unfair and-or to remove the consequences of sin. People may, at times, try to use just about anything that doesn't directly contradict their point of view, but it would be a very big reach in this case. I'm reasonably confident that (a focus on defending my previous view of God) is not part of my motivation. In these particular verses, the context itself refers to unbelief, not sin, as the reason for judgment: "because he has not believed..." From other passages, we can indeed conclude that condemnation is based on sinfulness and not on unbelief. However, in this particular passage, it is unbelief in the face of truth that leaves these specific people still in their ongoing state of condemnation for sin. I'm confident that there are very good reasons for your views regarding your understanding (and similar understandings of many others whom I deeply respect) regarding God's sovereign exercise of pre-selection of some for salvation and others for destruction. That view should certainly not be turned aside or modified lightly, and my previous response was not intended to challenge that view in any way. However, it sounds like your reasoning for rejecting the idea that this particular passage refers to active disbelief stems from a concern about the apparent availability of that interpretation to be used to falsely support a doctrine that you disagree with -- rather than based on the context itself. I respect your views regarding how God chooses to exercise His sovereignty (so far as I know them at least). I do believe this particular passage doesn't work as a proof text for application to those who have not heard because the context seems to apply specifically to active disbelievers. However, it certainly doesn't work as a proof text for anyone suggesting that ignorant unbelievers are not answerable to God either; as you point out, that is clearly dealt with elsewhere, and this passage says nothing of the sort. I believe this passage simply doesn't focus at all on those who haven't had the opportunity to hear. In John 3:18, Jesus is giving a message to Nicodemus for himself and other Pharisees who have come to Him for clarification; in John 3:31, John the Baptist is speaking to his own followers after a discussion with another Jew regarding their questions about Jesus, whose teaching they were familiar with. Both were addressed to those who had the opportunity, through exposure to Christ, to believe. Some believed, and some disbelieved. Members of these groups who didn't believe remained under God's judgment for their sins. Those who believed, in contrast, were saved through their belief. The question of what would have happened to them if they had not come into contact with Christ at all is not dealt with in this passage but elsewhere in the Scriptures. Peace, Brent |
||||||
109 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 13982 | ||
Who are the others who have labored before in John 4:38, so that the fields are now (at the time Jesus spoke) "white for harvest" (John 4:35)? 35 ""Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. 36 ""Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37 ""For in this case the saying is true, " One sows and another reaps.' 38 ""I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.'' |
||||||
110 | Who are the sowers? - II | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14061 | ||
Thank you, Nicodemus and Steve, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking answers to my question. I think I'm in basic agreement with a lot of what both of you say, but there are some observations I'd like to point out, as well as uncertainty as to which of several options Jesus is referring to. Please understand that my intention is to get at the truth with your help. (For me, this includes testing the specific ideas that you offer or quote on this question; I am certainly not testing or questioning your intelligence, knowledge or spirituality in any way.) 1) Nicodemus' quotation from the Nelson NKJV Study Bible seems a little out of context. The study Bible says that John the Baptist and his followers had been in Judea, but this scene did not take place in Judea; it took place in Samaria -- beside a well where Jesus was talking with the Samaritan woman whom He had met there. If there was further explanation (in the longer Nelson account) indicating Jesus may have been referring to Jesus' future sending out of His disciples into Judea, it may be plausible, but the immediate context makes it odd for the study Bible to refer specifically to Judea. 2) Nicodemus quote from the Zondervan NASB Study Bible seems more logical in context. Perhaps John's disciples had by this time gone to the Samaritans as well; is there any indication that John's disciples may have reached them yet? Paul later (quite a bit later) ran into "disciples" as far away as Ephesus who had been thus prepared by a follower of John's teaching and baptism (apparently Apollos prior to his correction by Priscilla) - see Acts 19:1ff. Another logical possibility that appears to fit the context well is the availability and distribution of the teachings of all prophets in general concluding with John and his witnesses. 3) Steve Butler also suggests Jesus (alone) as the "others" referred to. This appears unreasonable given the use of the plural form "others" by Jesus. Jesus and the woman together MIGHT possibly be the "others" -- but this is a sequential message, not a message being proclaimed to them by multiple speakers, so it still seems questionable. Of course, Jesus and-or the Samaritan woman may be a PART of the "others" referred to by Jesus, but it would seem to me that there should be "others" as well. Can Nicodems, Steve, or others offer further input or direction to this. I really don't have a final answer for myself, but it is part of something I've been considering. |
||||||
111 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14062 | ||
Steve, Thank you for your input on this. Please see my response to Nicodemus, as I'd like your further input based on my question to him and my reference to your previous input in that posting. I wanted to send a response to you directly, as well, so that you would be aware of my follow-up posting. |
||||||
112 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14272 | ||
Thanks for the added commentary, Ray. My question was actually much more narrow. I was referring specifically to the situation in John 4. Jesus was in Samaria, speaking to a specific group of people whom He soon sent out among the Jews and Samaritans. I don't know that the statement in this passage had any reference whatsoever to his later command sending them to the nations. At this point, I think I'm agreed with the view that John 4 is referring to the patriarchs and prophets, leading up through John and including Himself. Your reference to this passage as a parable (in your earlier response) confuses me somewhat. This is historical interaction without stories or parables being told. There may be some double reference to the disciples being sent to get bread that someone else had prepared and the upcoming evangelism among the Jews and Samaritans, but this is not a parable. You kind of lost me when you referred to this exchange as a parable, and I'm not sure we're on the same page right now. Can we backtrack to the current passage again, or were you introducing a new topic? |
||||||
113 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14279 | ||
I'm not sure what happened with my last response, Ray. I sent it as a response to your last posting, but my response cam back as a response to my own original question. The interface seems to be doing odd things. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I had responded (in case you were looking for an automatic notification of a reply). | ||||||
114 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Brent Douglass | 229259 | ||
I have heard some commentators suggest that this verse is a jab at Jesus -- suggesting He had an illegitimate birth. Is this evident at all from the context or the language of the time? Perhaps I am just missing something obvious, but it seems to me that this is quite a reach that is assumed based on modern dramatic traditions regarding the conception and birth of Christ. The context seems pretty clear that they are simply claiming to be true spiritual descendants of Abraham, not unfaithful idolaters or descendants of idolaters. Rather it seems that the religious leaders would have consistently, repeatedly, and forcefully made such accusations against Jesus if the history regarding His conception and birth was known. Please let me know if the following observations seem to be way off track. There seems to me to be a clear pattern in the conception and birth history of Matthew and Luke indicating that God provided a way for Mary to be sequestered with Elizabeth during the first trimester (when morning sickness would have been most evident). The census then provided an ideal reason for Joseph and Mary to marry quickly and leave early in the second trimester before Mary's pregnancy would have become obvious to others (being the first pregnancy of a young and likely healthy woman), and it seems that Joseph would have wisely pursued such a path. They then likely would have arrived in Bethlehem (perhaps to Joseph's birth home or extended family) already married. The baby was then born "while they were there" (Luke 2:4-6) in Bethlehem (not likely the night they arrived or the context would have noted the timing as in other places in Scripture). No relatives there in Bethlehem would have been aware that they were not already married at the time of conception -- unless they chose to deliberately trust them to believe their story (when Joseph himself had naturally doubted until an angel spoke to him). Then they remained in Bethlehem for nearly two years (probably intending to settle there away from any potential gossip in Nazareth if they returned too soon with a child). And then they went to Egypt (likely for several years) before finally returning to Nazareth when Jesus was likely anywhere from 4 to 10 years old (before He was 12 anyway). As a result, the exact timing of Jesus' conception and birth would likely have been hidden from everyone in Nazareth as well -- again unless Joseph and Mary chose to deliberately reveal it. (Joseph knew from personal experience how ridiculous the story would sound coming from another person before Jesus had proven His identity through His ministry, death, and resurrection.) If people knew the story of Jesus' conception before His death and resurrection, I would expect Jesus' enemies to use the common "knowledge" of His apparent illegitimate birth at every opportunity to undermine Him and refute His claims and His popularity as a spiritual leader. Yet we never see such direct accusations, and no commentators have pointed to any reference except this one (which seems so questionable in context). I am really not looking for an argument. However, the context and observations seem to argue rather strongly against such interpretation, and yet people much more knowledgeable that I have, at times, made such a suggestion. Is there something in the text, grammar, or practices of the day that indicates this intent on the part of the religious leaders or a response/reaction on the part of Jesus indicating that He understood their statement in such a light? Please let me know what you think? |
||||||
115 | Father and Son's relationship to E.O.? | John 14:28 | Brent Douglass | 7599 | ||
How do the Father and the Son relate to each other? I don't wish to open up a discussion on whether the Trinity is accurate. My question begins with the assumption that it is true that God has one essence but 3 persons in relationship. Nor is this question related to the relationships between the Father and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Son (or even how the 3 relate together synergistically); I'd like to ask those questions separately later (as part of a further study along the same lines) and focus on the Father and Son now. My questions are, 1) "What are some of the many passages that describe the ways that the Father and the Son relate to one another?" and 2) "What can we learn about God from these passages?" Please give verses and observations. |
||||||
116 | Father and Son's interactive relations? | John 14:28 | Brent Douglass | 7605 | ||
Thanks for the response, Nolan. I appreciate the effort and thought you put into your response, and I believe I'm in full agreement with your points. However, I think my question must have been unclear. What I mean to ask is, "What does the Bible say (verses and observations) about the Father and the Son's RELATIONSHIP?" -- NOT only (or even primarily) their identities or a comparison of them but primarily their INTERACTION through RELATIONSHIP. How do the Father and the Son relate TO One Another? | ||||||
117 | Was Jesus actually in the tomb 3 days? | John 19:31 | Brent Douglass | 1294 | ||
Tradition has it that Jesus rose from death on the third day, being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday. However, it's very possible (and even probable) that Jesus was actually crucified on a Wednesday, which was then followed by the 7th day of the Passover, which was a special Holy Day (see Exodus 12:16-18). He would then have remained in the tomb 3 complete days (sunset Wednesday to sunset Saturday, then on into early Sunday morning) before rising on the "first day of the week" -- the timing of which is clearly stated in the gospels and recognized by all. Although this is contrary to the image that we often have of the events, John's gospel appears to indicate fairly clearly (in John 19:30-32) that the Sabbath after Christ's crucifixion was actually a special holy day (presumably one of those associated with the Passover) rather than simply the 7th-day-of-the-week weekly Sabbath. This is not some wild new idea of my own imagination. There have been respected theologians who have advocated this, and I have heard at least one current and respected teacher (Charles Swindoll) advocate such a timing of events, as well. Just as in the legend that has grown up around Jesus's birth (arriving in Bethlehem the very night of his birth, magi at the manger rather than a house or inn, etc.), there are traditions that have become treated as actual in the crucifixion story as well. They don't seem to me to be harmful enough misunderstandings to be fought against, but it's worth bringing out their limitations from time to time. |
||||||
118 | Plural Sabbaths? Passover Clarification? | John 19:31 | Brent Douglass | 7783 | ||
The question of what day of the week the crucifixion took place is clearly a secondary issue being considered among brothers as to what the Bible actually says, NOT a question of fringe doctrines that divide. Nevertheless, the text needs to be carefully considered in the midst of what appears to be a simple dismissal of varying views (from the recently assumed view) without Biblical support. From the evidence shown in the earlier posts, it seems clear the term "3 days and 3 nights" doesn't in any way directly undermine a Friday (nor can we necessarily calculate the day based on a "wooden" application of this usage). Nevertheless, there still remains a question as to why it's been assumed in recent history to be a Friday; where is the Biblical evidence for Friday? We can say with certainty that the discovery of the empty tomb took place on Sunday -- the first day of the week (John 20:1); the day of the crucifixion is less clear. So far as I know, the only reference that could possibly be interpreted as referring to the day of the week of the crucifixion is the reference to the Sabbath. However, the very wording of the self-same reference ("because it was the day of preparation... for that Sabbath was a high day" -- Jn 19:31) deliberately adds the clarification that this was a special Passover Sabbath, NOT a weekly Sabbath (at the very minimum, NOT MERELY a weekly Sabbath); therefore, any preference for Friday based on the Sabbath is removed by the text itself. John makes a point of stating this at least twice in the passage. Notice also John 19:14, which confirms that the day of Christ's crucifixion was the day before a Passover-related holy day: "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover." Every time the terms "day of preparation" or "preparation" are used in this passage, the context above requires them to be understood as "preparation for the Passover" NOT "preparation for the Friday evening Sabbath". Can someone with better Greek references at hand verify whether any of the Sabbath references to the crucifixion and resurrection (in John or in the other Gospels) are plural? I recall vaguely (whether correctly or incorrectly I can't verify) that at least one reference did refer to plural "Sabbaths" between the crucifixion and the resurrection, which would further indicate that Friday was not the day of the crucifixion. This should be fairly simple to verify for someone with the right materials or knowledge of Greek; I'm afraid I have neither at my disposal right now. A clearer understanding of the celebration of Passover Sabbaths would also be helpful. (I remember something about there being 2 actual Passover Sabbath days that are separate from the weekly Sabbath, but I know little else about them.) I apologize for my vagueness, but elaboration could really help clarify. |
||||||
119 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2112 | ||
'So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ""Receive the Holy Spirit.' John 20:21-22 Did Jesus first give the Holy Spirit here in John 20:22, or over a month later at Pentecost? If not until Pentecost, what exactly did Jesus do when he breathed on his followers after his resurrection and told them to receive his Spirit? If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost? |
||||||
120 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2123 | ||
I agree that this can definitely be a controversial question, and I appreciate your willingness to chime in. I chose it not for the controversy but to challenge myself and others to re-examine our assumptions in light of the Scriptures. Let me make sure I understand your reply. First you quoted MacArthur (one of the current teachers whom I most respect, but whom I doubt on his reading of John 20:22). One of the things I most appreciate about MacArthur is his integrity and transparency. To paraphrase him, he basically states that his underlying assumptions (or earlier foundations within his systematic theology built on other passages) act as a filter requiring him (and you) to reject the most obvious and natural reading of John 20:22. MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost; therefore, Jesus didn't give the Spirit in Jn 20:22. If one tries to envision the scene of Jesus "breathing on" the apostles and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit," it is difficult for me to accept an underlying understanding between Jesus and the apostles that he actually meant "some time in the future" and wasn't intending to do so for another 40 days. It seems that you define "baptism" and "receiving" (of the Spirit) as synonymous but consider "filling" to have a distinct meaning. This I find compelling, although I must admit I'm not fully convinced as to which terms are synonymous with which. As MacArthur points out, there is clearly a potentially repetitive nature to this filling. I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). My main interest is in seeing what others have to say on this one, though. Thanks again for your input. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |